Talk:Homophobia/Archive 13

Additions to the FAQ?
Is was mentioned that we might be overlooking some aspects in the FAQ. Are there any discussions or ideas that someone thinks is missing? If so I'm happy to dig a bit and see if we can find a NPOV way to include them. Insomesia (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI report regarding this talk page
AN ANI report regarding conversations on this talk page has been posted at User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia North8000 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000 Discussion. Insomesia (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See the article for "hoplophobia" to see how this one should be written
It is funny that "homophobia" is largely treated as a legitimate term here, while "hoplophobia" is not, even though they both have the same degree of [il]legitimacy.

From the "hoplophobia" article:

"Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism originally coined to describe an 'irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.'"

Homophobia is also normally used as a pejorative (link), and it is also a neologism (it was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg in his book "Society and the Healthy Homosexual")

From the "hoplophobia" article:

"Hoplophobia is not a true phobia, and it is not recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true phobias. For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual."

All of that also applies to the word "homophobia".

At least Cooper's term was constructed intelligently, using two Greek terms. Weinberg's term on the other hand was constructed from "homo" (which is ironically a disparaging slang term for homosexuals), and "phobia" which is from a Greek word for "fear". Neither the Latin nor the Greek terms "homo" have anything to do with homosexuality; they mean "man" and "same" respectively. The "homo" in "homophobia" references homosexuals (literally: "fear of homos", which is understood to mean "fear of homosexuals"), and the only time "homo" means "homosexual" is when it is used as a slang, a slang that is considered offensive no less.

The difference here is that the PC crowd likes the word "homophobia", but they don't like the word "hoplophobia". – MaximRecoil (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. An immense number of people have pointed out the problems with this article, but a trio who likes its current POV has delayed repair by chasing them away one by one, and embedding their argument in the header. Be prepared to be accused of all sorts of things in order to chase you off. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be missing the point above but i've never heard of hoplophobia before. North, you've been told over and over for months to make changes if you like as long as they're reliably sourced and neutral but you've refused to so you can complain on this talk page instead. Read WP:NOTFORUM and do something. Also quit your "trio" claims again while you're at it, i'm getting quite sick of those accusations and i'll take it to admin if i see it once more . Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixing it will require a few more sets of eyes staying involved. But the first step will be a review (with more eyes involved) of the truly elegant and total solution which would be to rename the article to "opposition to homosexuality" and then cover the term "homophobia" within that.  What happens on that question is a fork in the road for the fix of the article.  If it stays "homophobia" then coverage along the lines of "Hoplophobia" would be in order. Another early step would be to unembed the POV statements on the problems from the header, and then go to an RFC if someone puts it back in.   I'm not up for that grief at the moment.  North8000 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's neither the most common name for this, nor neutral. We don't call arachnophobia Opposition to spiders or Islamophobia opposition to muslims/islam for the same reasons. They exist whether you agree or not. Homophobia encompasses a few things and would cover less with that name, also it would become a POV nightmare and you'd never find anyone supporting the rename you'd like because it is in breach of naming convention. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try a requested move anyway if you like but i'd also read WP:SNOW too. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For arachnophobia there is only one widely used definition and it is not contested. Further, the single and common definition refers to an actual phobia.  None of that is true for "homophobia" or "Islamophobia". North8000 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Homophobia could be argued as being an "actual phobia" rather than just a word per some definitions and the basis of gay panic defenses and laws. Again though you won't request a move will you? (i'm hoping you will) And this question is already one of three answered at the top of the page. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In your first sentence you are making my point, which conflicts with how this article is written. Regarding the rest, I don't plan on any effort on this now.  But when I do step one will get those arguments for one POV taken out of the header. They don't belong there. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do what you like but keep in mind the relevant policies, which include WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality, WP:Reliable, WP:Weight. Also keep in mind that others can disagree with your changes, including me if they don't agree. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the FAQ at the top of the page is neither a cited article nor policy/guideline, right? And you are correct, it could be and is argued as an actual phobia.  That's the point that (apparently) North8000 has been correctly arguing for some time now.  -- No  unique  names  05:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous thread seemingly created by someone who not only hates gays, but is part of the gun lobby. North, you should know better than to show any empathy with the OP. Let's not go over the arguments about the meaning of homophobia again. Its common English usage is clear, and it is real. Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of your text is not only ad hominem, but it is ad hominem consisting of baseless assertions, some of which you apparently sourced from a defective crystal ball. As such, most of your text can be legitimately dismissed out of hand. With regard to the rest of your text:


 * "Its common English usage is clear"


 * Yes, it is most commonly used as a pejorative.


 * "and it is real"


 * It is no more "real" than hoplophobia is, that is, it is not real in a clinical sense.


 * "Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit."


 * If that is true then the following statement is also true:


 * "Homophobia is paranoid American political bullshit." – MaximRecoil (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So clever. Not. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your tacit concession is noted. Also:
 * "Not"
 * R.I.P.
 * 1988–1989
 * MaximRecoil (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree. HiLo, your statement was completely out of line, and in addition, was an attack on a people group. You need to understand that just because we're arguing that the word "homophobia," at least used in this context, is inappropriate, doesn't mean that we hate gays, or even have a problem with homosexuality. I'm simply agreeing with MaximRecoil; This is not an unbiased, universal term. Additionally, it can be used to paint a suspiciously negative picture of those who would disagree with the authors of this article. The talk page "FAQ" itself states that the term itself is a "faulty construct." This being the case, along with the fact that it's an unscientific term which can have multiple definitions, has a significant amount of disagreement as to the word's application, and is implicatory in and of itself, shows that this page is in an unhealthy state. —Maktesh (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MaximRecoil (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree. HiLo, your statement was completely out of line, and in addition, was an attack on a people group. You need to understand that just because we're arguing that the word "homophobia," at least used in this context, is inappropriate, doesn't mean that we hate gays, or even have a problem with homosexuality. I'm simply agreeing with MaximRecoil; This is not an unbiased, universal term. Additionally, it can be used to paint a suspiciously negative picture of those who would disagree with the authors of this article. The talk page "FAQ" itself states that the term itself is a "faulty construct." This being the case, along with the fact that it's an unscientific term which can have multiple definitions, has a significant amount of disagreement as to the word's application, and is implicatory in and of itself, shows that this page is in an unhealthy state. —Maktesh (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Something must be done to stop systematic trolling on this page.-- В и к и  T   19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Clear consensus has been reached on this word. Threads such as this are unnecessary, inevitably provocative, and never helpful. They give a platform for rednecks to abuse their right to free speech. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed here also. I find it strange that the page is very rarely vandalised, yet the amount of trolling on the talk page is higher than average...That being said i think we should engage with these editors a little, but not when it becomes obvious that what they seek is in violation of policies. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * North8000 has made repeated pleas for more pairs of eyes to evaluate his prolonged argument - if I may generously call it that - and more eyes have affirmed that, yes, Homophobia is the appropriate name for an article which appropriately and comprehensively defines the concept (with a plethora of sources). Nonetheless, I'm happy to offer my two eyes as well. One must be disingenuous in the extreme not to perceive that the common use of the word "homophobia" is to describe opposition to homosexuality, to homosexuals, or to equal rights for LGTB people. It only rarely is used in the sense of literal fear, although the extent to which prejudice against an identifiable group is based on fear of the other has been a matter of scholarly inquiry for quite some time. The aforementioned article on prejudice is a good place to begin one's research on the relationship of fear to bigotry. What is racism, after all, if not "opposition to (fill in the blank)" (predicated on fear of blacks, Asians, whites, etc.)? Or Islamophobia, "opposition to Muslims or the Muslim religion" (based on fear of Muslims or the ethnic groups commonly associated with Islam)? The rationale for the opposition is immaterial. It is the prejudice itself which is germane, which has historically been rationalised on precisely the same bases for ethnic and religious minorities as for homosexuals and homosexuality. Do your research. The pedantic nature of the tired argument that "homophobia" is a (forty year old) neologism; one that maddeningly and irrationally combines roots from two different languages roughly translating to "fear of sameness," is scarcely worth treating seriously. Why? Because that's irrelevant to what the word actually means in the English language - which, if the editors alarmed by such etymological anarchy actually were to crack a contemporary dictionary, they would quickly and decisively find out for themselves. fishhead64 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Trolling is all part of a perspective. Creating a page from a biased point-of-view, and having a handful of editors defend it, while chasing opponents away. So, HiLo, you're going to call us rednecks because we disagree on your application of the word? You've got issues, bro, and have some nerve calling anyone else a troll. You also insulted Americans earlier, too. You know what? This is a the Gay Agenda at its best. ;) Look at this page's history to see that many eyes have seen -and disagreed with- what this page is. However, they keep getting bullied away. Regardless, homophobia is not supported by a universal dictionary definition. What you are attempting to do is redefine a word using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your agenda.
 * In addition, the fact that this page is not being vandalized shows that you have legitimate users and editors who are attempting to repair this page through the right channels. I said this before, and it was ignored: I think it can be rationally argued that the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives. WP:CONFLICT Yes, I'm going to throw that flag. There is a COI here, and honestly, I feel that this page is reaching the point of needing administrative review. —Maktesh (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's an "administrative" view; what else would be the content of the page "Homophobia"? And what would be the title of an article on the general view of people who are opposed to homosexuality?  This appears to be the main issue here.  Someone said above that it was an American construct; well, I don't live in America, and the standard word used here for opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia".  See this for a piece by the new leader of the Church of England just this week, for example. I work in education - see this and this both issued by the British Government Department for Education, this published by the largest teacher's union in the UK, and this published by a national newspaper.  In fact I could go on and on -     etc. etc. etc. Frankly, I agree with the above posters, the persistent back-and-forth by some people on this talk page is apporaching the levels of trolling. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your posts makes the argument that the "all opposition is phobia" definition exists. That is a given and not in question. What IS in question is that this article pervasively implicitly states that that is the ONLY definition, that the "phobia is phobia" definition does not exist. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a fundamental problem here, that the whiners about the word just don't get. Yes, homophobia IS a pejorative term. That's because being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be. It's got nothing to do with what the roots of the word once meant. Most people who routinely use the word word (NOT meaning fear of homosexuals) DO mean it as a negative term. So deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @North8000. Hi. I don't think that that contention is supportable. If you look at the Origins section of the article it quite clearly delineates the original definition of homophobia as a form of fear. That the term's usage and meaning has evolved since then is another matter. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @HiLo48 You've tacitly conceded my point. "Hoplophobia" is used in exactly the same way as you've admitted "homophobia" is used, thus the two articles should be written in a similar manner. Also, if you are going to assume that your following value judgment - "being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be" - is a fact, then I'll go ahead and proclaim the following value judgment to also be a fact - "being anti-gun is not a nice thing to be". You'll find that being anti-whatever is never a "nice thing to be" from the perspective of people who are pro-whatever. – MaximRecoil (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The two terms are not remotely similar. One is used immensely widely - worldwide in English-speaking countries and also has its equivalents in other languages. Its use in the manner which the article explains is almost universal.  The other is almost unknown - it doesn't even appear in the OED, Collins, Britannica or Chambers - and practically every reference I can find to it is either a dictionary definition or being used by those very close to the gun lobby and its opponents (mostly, I note, in blogs).  It also appears, where the definitions generally agree, to be an aversion to guns, not to people who espouse their use.   A better analogy to "homophobia", as has been mentioned repeatedly on this page, would be "xenophobia". Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The two terms are not remotely similar."


 * I've already pointed out their similarities, so consider that claim dismissed out of hand. The only difference is how commonly used the term is. That's not a meaningful difference, because level of popularity doesn't have anything to do with how the word is most commonly applied. Both words are used as a pejorative, both words are neologisms, and both words are meaningless in a clinical sense, despite sounding like clinical terms. The "hoplophobia" article starts out:


 * "Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism"


 * The "homophobia" article should also start out:


 * "Homophobia is a pejorative neologism"


 * The source for the "pejorative" part is already in the "homophobia" article (source number 105), as is the source for it being a neogolism (source numbers 11 and 16) – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work. Using your argument then being anti paedophile is not a nice thing to be. Please re-examine your argument and then write a better one using Wikipedia policies for your point. Otherwise it will be ignored as forumtalk. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me Jenova20? If so, I'm not the one that came up with the "being a whatever is not a nice thing to be" "argument"; I merely illustrated the flawed reasoning behind it to the person who did come up with it. – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's just bullshit. Many words, including homophobia, are pejorative, simply because they describe negative attitudes. We don't have to emphasise that aspect in defining them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works:
 * "[...] the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."


 * William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689


 * You don't get to simply proclaim that anyone who is critical of homosexuality in any way, has a "negative attitude", not legitimately anyway. – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum for discussing original research
The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article. Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion. More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion. If sources can be found to support this novel idea (and not just the individual components: neologism, pejorative, holpophobia, psychological fear, political correctness, gay puppies, etc.) then we can weigh the prevalence of those sources against other abundant sources to determine how to incorporate those ideas into the article with due weight. Pro tip: a fringe minority theory probably will not get top billing in the lede.

Continued discussion based on original research and trying to navigate this minefield of logical fallacies will not improve the article. We require reliable sources. General discussion about the topic that are not grounded in editing according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not acceptable because this is not a forum for general discussion. When several editors suggest that this may be the case, it would be wise to listen. - MrX 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research"


 * False. The aspects of "Pejorative", "neogolism", and "no clinical meaning" are all included (with sources) in both articles. However, those things are emphasized in one article, and are buried in the other within an article which expounds on this word which in reality is used for nothing more than "name-calling".
 * My claim that it is original research has nothing to do with the individual concepts, but rather about your assertion that they should be presented in the homophobia article in a similar manner and with similar relative weight as in the hoplophobia article. If I've misconstrued your original premise, then please clarify it, because I'm probably not the only one who reads it as such. - MrX


 * "and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article."


 * You don't get to skip the part about proving that the premises are false prior to proclaiming them to be false.
 * Your original premise: "See the article for "hoplophobia" to see how this one should be written" is based on the fallacious claim that because the two words have similar attributes to their meaning, then the Homophobia article should be written like the hoplophobia article. First, its a fallacy of composition. It's also fallacious to suggest that the shorter, less referenced article should be the model for the longer, more referenced article, simple because it aligns with your personal preference. If I'm wrong, and this approach aligns with a broader consensus, or mainstream viewpoint, then please provide evidence of such. - MrX


 * "Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion."


 * They have refuted nothing. Yes, this is mere contradiction, but mere contradiction is all that's required in response to a baseless assertion.
 * Examples have been provided, not mere contradictions. Perhaps click on some of the links in Black Kite's post? You may also find dictionaries to be helpful in this quest. - MrX


 * "More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion."


 * The sources are contained in the two articles themselves, as I've mentioned above. And it is not a "theory". – MaximRecoil (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources exist for individual concepts. Your challenge is to find sources that tie those concepts together to support the edits to this article that you believe are needed. Perhaps if you make some specific proposals with corresponding sources, you will find more support for your ideas. Or you could just WP:BEBOLD and edit the article. - MrX 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "no clinical meaning". Tell that to the authors of the thousands of scientific and  medical literature pertaining to (and using the term) homophobia. Arguing that something does not exist because it is etymologically wrong is idiotic. Is xenophobia, which applies to virtually all forms of prejudice (including homophobia, racism, antisemitism, misogyny, misandry, etc.), also a figment of our imagination because it implies fear when in reality its most prevalent manifestation is hate?  --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough
This is the textbook definition of disruptive. We have been over and over and over this from every conceivable angle, and these arguments are going absolutely nowhere. Over the course of more threads than I care to count and posts to at least two widely-read noticeboards, there's been input from a wide array of impartial, experienced editors, and the consensus remains that the claims being put forward about alleged problems in the article are without merit. To put it another way, the horse being beaten is dead and decomposed, and nasty little tatters of horseflesh are littering the ground. From a relevant guideline:"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."If anyone who has a problem with this article has anything new to say, by all means, say it. Otherwise, please rest assured that you have made your point. Making it repeatedly or more loudly is both an exercise in futility and a highly effective method of irritating those who disagree with you. I assume your intent isn't to disrupt, so I cannot help supposing that you will let the horse rest in peace at long last. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, a user talkpage notice has been delivered to North8000 regarding this issue. Insomesia (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that further threads of this type be hatted and the thread starter pointed towards the FAQ and/or previous threads. Perhaps some of the longer threads could be added to the FAQ, in fact.  This does not of course apply to genuinely curious editors, although they are starting to prove difficult to tell apart. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It's best to nip this in the bud before it wastes any more editor time. It's clear that no useful proposals to improve the article are likely to be made. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. Rivertorch (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Count on my support ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, there seems to me consensus there. Please feel free to do it yourselves, as I am not massively active (currently moving house and trying to find new schools for three children - great fun!) but ping me if there's an issue.  Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean adding longer threads to the FAQ? Is there something that the FAQ isn't addressing that should be covered? Let's add them in! (And good luck with the move and all!) Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if linking to an archived thread or two might be less awkward. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which threads? Can we summarize them instead? They seem so rambly and soapbox-ish. Insomesia (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was only a suggestion, I'm sure there must be some that aren't simply full of unsupported "this article is terrible" ramblings. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hatting anything that you disagree with is a recipe for making the problems with this article worse. The same goes for directing inquiries and comments about the problems to places where you make YOUR side of the argument. This type of abuse is already currently in the header and you are talking about making it worse rather than fixing it. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been specifically asked to back up your opinions with reliable sources to enact specific changes you seek. You have failed to do so repeatedly. We are now, collectively, tired of asking for the courtesy of collegial editing. If you have a specific edit backed by reliable sources, we are eager to entertain such ideas. Otherwise your general pattern has been disruptive. And hatting disruptive discussions is a reasonable reaction to disruptive interjections after many months of this activity. Insomesia (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I have lost count of the number of times you've been asked to actually suggest how the article should change, backed up by reliable sources for those edits.  Should you be able to do that, I think you'll find that the regular editors here will enter into discussion.  Since you haven't done that in 260-odd edits to this talkpage, I think they're perfectly entitled to say "enough - come back when you've got something solid".  Editors have better things to do than have to rebut the same things over and over again so in the end, without concrete suggestions for improvement, such repetition is indeed disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's over. Move on. - MrX 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all been said. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to Black Kite, see "proposed fix" section above. The problem is structural, so new sourced material is just a sidebar to the main issue/fix. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The problem is that you are being disruptive and tendentious, and wasting editors' time with your deadhorse arguments. Move on. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well looking at my post and Dominus Vobisdu's together pretty much shows what has been happening on this talk page. Accusations while always avoiding actually discussing the points in the post. I've heard those baseless insults a zillion times (plus the "add material" non-answer to the structural problems) but never  "North, could you clarify what the structural problem that you claim exists is?" North8000 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...But you haven't learned from those zillion times ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are things to be learned when a certain small group of people repetitively make false accusations and re-directs and avoid discussing the actual points of the conversation. I have learned those and they have been reflected in my characterization of what has been happening here. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's a bigger problem with a disruptive editor making accusations against a "trio of editors" controlling an article, even though they're not stopping him/her from editing, while generally being disruptive, ignoring consensus, being uncivil, making personal attacks etc.
 * Now either edit the article with reliable sources and respecting the appropriate policies or i'll push this to an admin to look at when i see a single post of forumtalk here again. You've wasted enough of my time, and that of the other editors here who've had to take time from editing to reply. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps asserting a bunch of false accusations, insults and attacks as facts as you just did is not the best way to truly try to end an unpleasant exchange. I will try to do something different than that. While the calls to "add sourced material" have been somewhat of a diversion from the actual fixes needed, upon a closer review I can see a way that such could be a next step. I am redirecting myself to make that my next post in the pages of this article unless someone feels the need to again explicitly or implicitly do what I described at the beginning of this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Methinks you have too much time on your hands. You've not been successful in convincing other editors, who number considerably more than three, so just drop it. I, for one, am just going to ignore further posts from you on the subject. You've contributed nothing original since you initiated this campaign. fishhead64 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You keep speaking of fixing something, but nothing is broken. That you think it is simply demonstrates that your view is a fringe one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * North, please stop talking about what you think should be done or what you plan to do. If you want to edit the article, edit the article; your changes will either be accepted, modified, or reverted. I don't think anyone wants to discuss proposals here anymore. Rivertorch (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest, I think people are interested in discussing actual proposals backed by reliable sources up to at least Wikipedia's standards that might likely be a part of this article. Hypothetical fixes without reliable sources remain of little interest. Insomesia (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "to date" mean?
To me, it means "as of right now". It doesn't seem very accurate to say something to the effect of "this fact is true to date" in 2012, when we are backing that statement up with a source from 1999.

Here is the edit I'm talking about:

Honestly, I can't think of any legitimate reason to revert that edit.

Now, maybe it IS true, "to date". But we need a more current source before we can say that in the article, regardless of what anybody would prefer to have the article say.  Belch fire - TALK 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia as a psychiatric disorder?
Apparently the Swedish medical textbook Dynamisk Psykiatri (2003 ed.) by Johan Cullberg deals with the curing of homophobia as a psychiatric disorder. Previous editions (1993 ed. and such) dealt with curing homosexuality. I would like it to be included in the article somehow, but I lack exact knowledge. Perhaps someone with access to a copy could add more. -- Auric 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the debates we've had here over the meaning of homophobia in English, I doubt if something in Swedish is going to be all that helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know more about the textbook before offering an opinion. What do you mean when you say editions as late as 1993 "dealt with curing homosexuality". Dealt with it how? Rivertorch (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No clue. This is the Google books page for the 1993 ed. This TV Tropes page on Categorism As A Phobia has some more info. For more, you'll need to get a copy, I'm afraid.-- Auric 12:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * a single work is generally a sign of a WP:FRINGE theory, or at the very least WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Google books shows the earliest edition published in 1984, and 6 editions since then. Supposedly this is "one of the main psychiatric textbooks in Sweden." -- Auric 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's "one of the main psychiatric textbooks in Sweden." then that's notable, but we'd need some evidence of what exactly that means. But Red pen is quite right when he says Fringe is an issue, especially as these are by the same author. Multiple people writing on a topic gives it more authenticity and authority, just one and it looks like they're either an expert or an obsessive person. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't do anything without knowing exactly what the book says. The TV Tropes description does say it is subject to a lot of criticism, which supports the idea that, whatever it says, it is something of a fringe view.--Trystan (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Judging from the author's article, he's a major figure in Swedish psychiatry, so either he he held a minority view—certainly a fringe one by 1993—or we're misreading this somehow. I guess I should say I'm a little fuzzy on why exactly the evolving viewpoint found in a Swedish psychiatry textbook would be noteworthy for the article on homophobia in the English Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrational fear in the media
Strange enough the Associated Press (whatever that is) just announced they are to stop using the word homophobia (link here) as they don't agree with the meaning of the word. Bit of a coincidence...Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a shift in how a reliable secondary source uses the term is certainly notable, and I'd think a brief, neutrally-worded mention would be appropriate. Maybe not immediately; there's likely to be considerable controversy over the AP's change, so chances are it will be an evolving story. Rivertorch (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update from second source - it looks like more of a political decision that someone at the associated press doesn't think it's a real phobia, or at least that's how it reads. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say I had a little chuckle when I saw this today (Guardian commentary by Patrick Strudwick). FiachraByrne (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

faq #1 edit
"Also dictionary definitions are never more than a starting point for determining the scope of a given article. One reason for that has to do with the rapidity with which language evolves." should be removed from the first FAQ. It's unnecessary and makes it longer than it needs to be, and, given that three of the four inline citations in the article for the definition are dictionaries, a bit of a strawman. NE Ent 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is tied to the fact that editors had been championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition. As it is just a FAQ to help those who bother to read it i think it should remain. It pertained to specific concerns raised frequently. And dictionary definitions are only a starting point for encyclopedic articles. That's how Wikipedia works. Insomesia (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasoning doesn't match the title of the faq "Why is (isn't) the definition limited to a (my) dictionary definition?" NE Ent 00:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should tweak the title then? Insomesia (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that sentence. Those who want to change the scope of this article are not "championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition", to the contrary, they are ignoring dictionary definition of homophobia and insisting that the word should be defined by defining two different words - homo and phobia (which would literally mean fear of the same). That is WP:OR and has nothing to do with dictionary definition of homophobia.-- В и к и  T  00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to try to incorporate both suggestions. NE Ent 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction and body incoherent regarding article topic/scope
I find the current introduction to be incoherent relative to the body of the article. These are the first two sentences:

Is the topic of this article the word "homophobia", or is it the topic which can perhaps be best described as "opposition to homosexuals and/or homosexuality"? The introductory sentences suggest the former, but the article suggests the latter. I propose changing the introduction to more accurately describe the topic and scope of the article. For example:

Thoughts?

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I like it! That opening has been bothering me for some time. HiLo48 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The current introduction is good and supported by reliable sources.-- В и к и  T  19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This feels like the ongoing effort to rename the article opposition to homosexuality which has been rejected for at least the past year. Insomesia (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support this change. Hey, for once I agree with HiLo. :) as I think it helps work out some of the kinks we've been discussing, as it is reads "commonly refers to" rather than "is." It's a step in the right direction, and I think it will help improve the article, as well as decrease the conflict on this talk page. Wikiwind, just because it contains "good sources" doesn't mean that it's the best lead-in to the article. EDIT: It changes the lead to an encyclopedic entry as opposed to a (can I say) dogmatic statement. —Maktesh (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your new lede suggests the article is Opposition to homosexuality when it is in fact homosexuality. It is therefore not a summary of the article and not an appropriate lede. I cannot support it. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i think you mean the article is homophobia -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I likewise think that the present lede is supported by the reliable sources, and that the proposed version above shifts the scope of the article. I therefore can not support it, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it's been a long day for me. That's my excuse and i'm sticking to it. Any lede change on a controversial topic like this one really needs to stay on topic, and not simply be preparing it for a rename to a more POV title. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is an improvement in as much as it is a passive construction and less clear. That's not to say there's not opportunity for improvement. Perhaps, as an alternative (not necessarily better than the current wording):


 * - MrX 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, but i think we're giving too much weight to irrational fear, which is a fringe theory put into gay panic defenses and rarely ever successful. I think the majority of cases now actually see it as an excuse rather than anything genuine. I can't even think of an example to give you but is that possible at all? I'm not asking you to remove it, just not put it on equal par, since i don't believe it is a genuine condition, so much as a dictionary definition. I eagerly await replies from whoever regarding this. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The new definition replaces "Range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality..." with "Opposition toward homosexuality..." which is not the same. I agree with Insomesia that this change would be the first step towards renaming the article to "Opposition toward homosexuality". I can't support the definition which would describe all antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred as simply "Opposition". Imagine this definition: "Opposition to people from other countries is commonly referred to as Xenophobia". Ridiculous.-- В и к и  T  20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. This is not at all aimed at improving the article, but testing the ground for a rename. There is good reason for an analysis such as that after the arguments at the ANI and seeing them appear here now as an attempt on the lede with the same bolded potential title. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * do not support the proposed change - i do think however, that rather than basing the definition upon dictionaries, we base the lead on sociology texts' definitions (and make any changes that may entitle) because we are not writing a dictionary, but an encyclopedia about the sociologial use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And part of the problem is that the sociological usage of the term varies from society to society. The way I see it, the Lead is making a dogmatic statement, that although can be reliably sourced, isn't necessarily accurate. MrX had a good point when he said that it turns it into a "passive construction and [is] less clear." That defines the term. It's not clear, and for Wikipedia to take the liberty in defining it seems improper.


 * To go into more detail, the problem I see is that it's easy to source professional opinions where a (read:any) term is used as "X" but it's hard to source it saying a term is *not* used as "X." I'll try to dig up some sources here, but the article's lead should explain that the term has a wide range of functions, which generally vary in nature, and have an unclear definition. —Maktesh (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont think that the academic sociological use does have the variability that you are suggesting. and as in all matters we should reflect any variations WP:UNDUE in the appropriate weight to any variations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who think this is a first step towards renaming... please reconsider...
For the record, I would never propose or support changing the title of this article. The current title, Homophobia, is the most common name used for the topic of this article, and this topic is clearly the primary use of that word. But let's not confuse the word homophobia (and all of its meanings) that is the title with the topic, which is not all of the word's meanings (see WP:NOTADICT). That said, I understand the objection to simplifying the description of this topic to mere "opposition to ...". That's a valid criticism. Will give that more thought. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC) minor revision --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

Intro proposal #2
Taking all of the above into account, how about just changing the second sentence to get rid of "definitions" and distinguishing "irrational fear" as a possible basis, and changing "is" to "encompasses" in the first sentence? Current intro:

Proposed intro:

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Much better. I support that change.-- В и к и  T  21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support the change. I don't feel that it's making a significant alteration to the article's meaning. Personally, I feel that it still somewhat lacking, although I'm not sure what I would change. I'll think it over, and make a proposal if something arises. Until then, I'd say this is an improvement. —Maktesh (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that that would be an improvement. - MrX 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with Maktesh, but small incremental improvements are still improvements. William Avery (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "irrational fear" instead of simply "fear"? Is there a "rational fear" of lgbt? NE Ent 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The rationalness would depend on the opinion of the individual asked. I'd rather the word irrational dropped.  -- No  unique  names  03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some sources say irrational fear while others simply say fear. Irrational fear is perhaps a little more descriptive, but it may be redundant as NE Ent seems to suggest. - MrX 03:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm conflicted on "irrational". Obviously the fear is irrational, but does it need saying if it's invariably so? Suggest we find the best sources we can to see if it's justified. I'll look around a bit and see what I can find. No rush. Depending on what improvements we can make to the article, the whole lede may need to be significantly adjusted. I'd love to get this up to GA status. Rivertorch (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow; we actually got something done. In regards to irrational fear, I think that the word should stay put. I would say that there is potentially a "rational" fear of LGBT-related causes/movements/agendas, etc. The problem, once again, is that we're working with a very lucid term here. It's not an officially defined word as this article has applied it. I'd say, ultimately, that we need to plan out how this should further develop. Because there is an actual "homophobia" (irrational fear of homosexuals), being opposed for religious reasons would also be "opposition to homosexuality." I don't really support the "Christianity Section" topic above, but there are multiple reasons for opposition, and removing the word "irrational" makes this too much of a blanket. As a side note, that's why I think that the scope and title of this page are poorly presented. Also, if you don't play your cards right, you're going to have a lot of fundamentalists bringing a war party to this page. —Maktesh (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I wonder what that means. Fundamentalists are welcome to contribute to this or any article, as long as they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as is required of all editors. If you're predicting that such contributors may argue that religious views somehow exempt certain people from being homophobic, well, that would be a non-starter. Religious dogma has long been used to justify prejudice against minorities, but prejudice it still is, and it still goes by the terms (e.g., homophobia) that it goes by in any other case. Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "a very lucid term". Which term—homophobia or irrational—and did you really mean "lucid"? Rivertorch (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha; my bad! I meant non-lucid. Thanks for the catch. I'm saying that we could start a religious firestorm and edit war here. And none of us want that. I think what you're missing is looking at the problem from their eyes. You may see it as religious dogma, but they see it as God's clear revelation in morality. I'm not saying that within that homophobia doesn't exist. I'm saying that a lack of support through religious affiliation or otherwise doesn't necessarily equal homophobia or prejudice. For example, I'm not opposed to gay rights, but I see no reason to support gay marriage, simply from a naturalistic POV. That doesn't mean I'm prejudiced, or challenging their humanity. From a general standpoint, lack-of-support, opposition, and hatred of are three different things. Regardless, I think there's a distinction, and it seems that this article uses blanket terminology to cover a little too much. —Maktesh (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "...I see no reason to support gay marriage, simply from a naturalistic POV. That doesn't mean I'm prejudiced..." Ummm, yes it does. We're all prejudiced in one way or another,and that seem a very obvious obvious and extreme form of it. I know we're not here to debate the merits, etc, but that statement is very problematic. I hate having people rephrase my posts and tell me what I'm really thinking, but you really seem to be saying that gay marriage is unnatural. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would depend on a number of points, including the origin of marriage and its purpose (if any). This is not the place to debate such things; I'm only pointing out that there are multiple avenues from which to approach this.  One could be opposed to "gay marriage" but not to homosexual activity in general.  Would such an individual be prejudiced?  Those with a view in strong disagreement might likely say so, but that doesn't necessarily make it the case.  To say that everyone is prejudiced is a problematic statement from the start.  -- No  unique  names  16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are people who would say that opinion was homophobic though because of how it victimises them. That's directly relevant. Going into personal opinions though is not a good idea as you say. I resisted replying to Maktesh simply because the conversation could not possibly improve this article and so was unnecessary. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot that I could respond to, but that wouldn't do much to actually work towards improving the article. All I'll say say is it's a stretch to claim that we're all prejudiced. One can vote to civil union rights/visitation rights/etc., without voting for gay marriage. I have only stated my personal POV in order to keep where I'm coming from clear. This is not a religious issue for me, nor is it a personal battle. You can think what you want, HiLo, but you're still wrong. You can't apply a lack of support for anything else and say that it means opposition. (Oh, I don't like watching Dr. Who, so I think that it should be banned for everyone? Not quite a fair assessment.) This isn't about judging my POV. This is just about me stating where my cards lie to avoid mischaracterization. Moving forward: I agree with No  unique  names. I think that we need to be careful to avoid a tonality where we begin generalizing people groups, and labeling their reasons. It's a two-way street regardless of what side you're on. I think that the removal of the word "irrational" would be implying that there is no "rational" fear, which simply can't be proven, nor is it true, I would argue. —Maktesh (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You simply have no idea what prejudice means. You ARE prejudiced. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did that personal attack come from??? And how do you get that from my message? There's some good work being done here at the moment HiLo48 and that's not at all helpful or accurate. I'd like you to strike that at the least. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I think the PA may have been directed at Maktesh and/or at me, as we both rejected his basic premise that everyone is prejudiced. -- No  unique  names  16:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it on his talk page but he really should strike it either way. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally inappropriate, but I have no hard feelings towards you, HiLo. Strike it if you want; I really don't care either way. I'm attempting to steer the conversation away from an ideological debate, so unless something from here on out directly pertains to the topic at hand, I will ignore it. If you have a personal... "whatever" that you want to deal with, take it up on my talk page. Thanks. —Maktesh (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't strike it. It was directed at Maktesh for a silly ideological statement. He now claims that he is "attempting to steer the conversation away from an ideological debate", so I guess it worked. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

3rd sentence of Lead
The third sentence of the first Lead paragraph currently reads: "In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that 'Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.'" This seems a little off to me for a couple of reasons. First off, the beginning paragraph of the Lead is supposed to define the the subject generally without getting too specific. (WP:MOSBEGIN) This sentence is a very specific direct quote from a single person. (Unfortunately I don't know enough of the sources to know whether it is NPOV, but the "dehumanize" and "deny their humanity" bits seem a harsher than, say, what I get when I look up homophobia on Miriam Webster or Dictionary.com.) I think it also bugs me because the language seems rhetorical instead of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias (See WP:Quotations). Second, per WP:LEAD, the Lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've read through the body of the article and I can't find anything in the body about dehumanizing or denying humanity. The only thing in the body I can find that resembles the quote in the Lead is in the "Distribution of attitudes" section where a study found that "hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are 'likely companions.'" Even then, the statement in the Lead is much stronger than what the body is saying. Anyway, I suggest that the 3rd sentence of the Lead should be moved to the body, possibly to the "Efforts to combat homophobia" section. I'd make the edit myself, but I seem to remember this being a fairly controversial article, so I figured I'd just propose it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. It is somewhat UNDUE in the first Lead paragraph and can be moved to "Efforts to combat homophobia" or "Distribution of attitudes". Alternatively, it can be moved to last paragraph of the Lead.-- В и к и  T  20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree it's out of place in the lead, but is a reasonably notable opinion to go in the body. William Avery (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, how does this look? It's a direct copy-paste, but I tried to find the most relevant place to put it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That placement looks all right to me. If that section can be fleshed out a little more, I can see some mention of it (not necessarily King's words, specifically) being appropriate for the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good with it. It always made me uncomfortable playing the race comparison card in the lead. —Maktesh (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry folks, but the "decision" to move vital info was not announced to all of the major contributors of the article, I being the author of most of the lead. The quote is specific to homophobia, nothing more, nothing less, hence its importance to and position in the lead. Consensus had been reached a very, very long time ago on this inclusion and the onus is on those who go against the consensus to read the talk archives. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is on CJ Withers to point to a relevant discussion that demonstrates consensus and makes obvious how the reverted edit contradicts it). And there is no policy requiring announcing anything to major contributors. NE Ent 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Status Quo might apply. Until North8000 came along this article was surprisingly stable, then the talkpages were rendered rather useless. Now that a campaign has been waged that there must be dire structural changes we're seeing a concerted effort to find problems even where few in any exist. All articles need, or will see, improving with time. I'm not convinced that it reaches the level of concern flailed about but why don't those who do remain here seek to act cordially and accept that just maybe the article itself has been free of drama is that is doesn't have major problems that require gnashing of teeth. Any reasonable request - as always - will be entertained. If it helps the article then great. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, status quo is an essay, CCC is policy. Given his agreement to not edit here, bringing up North8000 is highly inappropriate. Let's discuss the articles, not personalities. NE Ent 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bringing up a fact that has dramatically affected this talkpage is always appropriate, and you have to actually have a consensus measured to determine a change has taken place. Two against one is hardly a consensus arrived at. Insomesia (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @CJ Withers, Sorry about that, I'm quite new to the article and didn't know that you had written the Lead. Would you mind pointing me to the specific archive that has the old consensus, because I am interested in reading it, if it's not too long. Also, I would appreciate it if you would address the points that I made above (about how the sentence does not summarize the article, is too specific for the 1st paragraph, and is fairly rhetorical in tone, which isn't quite appropriate for the Lead section). ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, stability and consensus were already acheived; please read archives as that it why they are kept. Let me correct the confused/misled: the purpose of encyclopedic "leads" is to introduce the subject first by defining it and then by explaining what the article is about by highlighting some main points. If the lead were simply a summary or outline, it would be called such. I agree with Insomnia in that such recent edits with drive-by consensus are disruptive. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lede is supposed to summarize the body and it doesn't make much sense to use a quote from another person to summarize an article they didn't write.   Sædon talk  01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @CJ See WP:CCC. Sædon talk  01:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please link to any Wikipedia policy regarding "stability." NE Ent 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." - MrX 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The material should remain in the lede unless a consensus forms to move it lower in the article. At the moment, there does not seem to be such a consensus. As for myself, I'm on the fence and open to compelling arguments to sway me one way or the other. - MrX 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems there's a lot of history here that I'm not aware of. Regarding the policies, I agree with both MrX and NE Ent. Consensus can change, but until there's a clear consensus here the article should stay as it is now. If we're just counting heads here, I think we have Wikiwind, William Avery, Born2cycle, Rivertorch, and myself who are ok with the move. CJ Withers opposes, MrX is on the fence, and NE Ent hasn't expressed an opinion. I personally think that the best way to move forward would be to give and evaluate policy-based arguments. I feel I've given some fair arguments above that haven't been addressed by anyone opposing the move. As for CJ Withers argument above, I don't believe that stability is a good enough reason to not try and improve stuff, and I'm not convinced by the argument that if the Lead were a summary it would be called such. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can put me on the fence, too. I agree with CJ Withers that it's important to define what an article is about, as well as to summarize its contents, in the lede. (I'm paraphrasing, CJ; I know that's not exactly what you said.) I do think that the Coretta Scott King bit helps greatly to define the concept; I just think it may be preferable to define it without relying on a direct quote from any one identified person, no matter her expertise on the concept and no matter how eloquent her words may be. I also think that in defining the concept we might do better sticking to what the relevant scientific fields (e.g., psychology, sociology) have to say. Other figures associated with MLK have expressed opinions contrary to Coretta's, and I'd hate to see the article devolve into a tit-for-tat, "she said, he said" attempt at "balance". Rivertorch (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say that I think Adjwilley acted very constructively here, by proposing something on the talk page, gaining agreement, and making the change. The idea that past major contributors would need to be individually notified every time an article is edited is neither practical nor necessary; they do not own the article. Consensus is not set in stone, and the above discussion demonstrates strong support for the edit, with only one editor clearly opposed to it.
 * Personally, I think the quote is informative and interesting, but it always struck me as jarring in its present location in the lead paragraph. I support moving it to the body for now. I'm not necessarily opposed to reintroducing it somewhere in the lead section, but it needs context. We need to cover the basics before we start introducing commentary from individuals.--Trystan (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's jarring, in part, because there's too much peacocking of CSK before getting to the quote; Author! Activist! My first preference would be moving it into the article, but if it's to remain in the lead, the introduction to the quote should be much shorter: change "In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that" to "Coretta Scott King has explained". Because we're a wiki, users unfamiliar with her can just click on the link. NE Ent 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree; we need more context for the quote, not less. The information about King explains why a quote from her is notable and warrants inclusion. The text should make sense as read, without requiring reading another article first.--Trystan (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that more context should be added, and I also support the move. —Maktesh (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm against it in the lead, but, more importantly, the idea expressed above that someone must be consulted because that individual wrote the lead is essentially the antithesis of the community development of a Wiki. It also seems to run afoul of WP:OWN. -- No unique  names  05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012
Request the following passage be ADDED to the Homophobia page in the Distinctions and Proposed Alternatives section:

Stephen M. White and Louis R. Franzini introduced the related term of “heteronegativism” to refer to the considerable range of negative feelings that some gay individuals may hold and express toward heterosexuals. This term is preferred to “heterophobia” because it does not imply a fear-based constellation of negative thoughts and emotions, as the corresponding term “homophobia” correctly implies in the attitudes of prejudiced heterosexuals.

Reference:

White, S.M., & Franzini, L.R. (1999). Heteronegativism? The attitudes of gay men and lesbians toward heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 37 (1), 65-79.

December 3, 2012

COI of Editor: Louis R. Franzini, Ph.D.-- Co-author of referenced journal article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRFranzini (talk • contribs) 3 December 2012


 * Note: I have copied the above text from User_talk:LRFranzini as it was originally placed there by a new user that I believe was acting in good faith. I may or may not respond to this request and have no prejudice against any other autoconfirmed editor in good standing responding to this request as s/he sees fit. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I added it to the Opposition > "Heterophobia" section which seemed more appropriate. - MrX 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The last edit summary cites the quote in this edit request, but the quote here isn't faithful to the language used in the study's extract.  The extract clearly states that his study found "less phobia", which is very different from saying that he found no phobia at all.  Thus, the current language in the article deviates from the source cited and needs to be changed for NPOV.   Belch fire - TALK  21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean this (emphasis added):


 * If so, I don't think this correlates to the actual text submitted by Dr. Franzini (above). - MrX 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to point this out, but this Talk page is not a valid source for the article, I don't care who posts on it. We need a link to the full text of the article for verification.  Failing that, we have the abstracts that are available online, which do not support the current version of the article.   Belch fire - TALK  22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite understanding the nature of this dispute, but I looked up the article's text online, and these paragraph seemed relevant, since they're setting out the differences between homo/hetero phobia/negativity.
 * "First, the most commonly used term ‘‘homophobia’’ unfortunately implies a pathological level of fear or dread which may overstate the attitudes and emotions of some people. An alternative term, ‘‘homonegativism’’ (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), refers to the entire spectrum of negative sentiment toward homosexuals, from dislike through hostility and hatred to actual fear. We offer the corresponding term, ‘‘heteronegativism,’’ as it applies to gay men and lesbians who dislike, hate, or fear heterosexuals. ‘‘Homophobia’’ and ‘‘heterophobia’’ will only be used in the present study in reference to feelings of extreme, unreasonable fear or dread of people of the other orientation and to refer to scores on assessment instruments. Otherwise, the more encompassing and less clinical terms ‘‘homonegativism’’ and ‘‘heteronegativism’’ will be used to refer to the range of negative feelings that people of one sexual orientation may hold toward people of the other. The second caution regards the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘‘heterophobia’’ in reference to homosexuals. It is clear that many homosexuals are often subject to discrimination and violence. Fear of particular hostile individuals or threatening situations is clearly quite rational. However, the generalization of such fear to the innocuous social situations typically described on questionnaires could be considered irrational. While the terms ‘‘phobia’’ and ‘‘negativism’’ are by no means interchangeable, because phobia is considered a part of the more encompassing negativism, theoretical statements regarding negativism would generally be expected to hold true for phobia as well. Thus, the expectation that gay men and lesbian women would experience less negativism toward heterosexuals than the reverse suggests that homosexuals would also report less phobia than heterosexuals. (pages 66-67)"
 * I hope this helps. Also, @Belchfire, I think you mean "abstract", not "extract". ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. Thanks.   Belch fire - TALK  22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative meaning
It should probably be noted at some point that fear of homosexuals is not the only meaning for the word "homophobia." "Homo-" is Greek for same, and "phobia" is fear. Thus "homophobia" can and is used to describe the fear of sameness of monotony. I'm having trouble finding a date when first used in this sense, but sources on this definition http://phobialist.com/, http://guidewhois.com/2011/04/fear-of-monotony/ , http://www.fun-with-words.com/phobias_e-h.html. I am not suggesting that it should be a major part of this article, but it should at least be given a sentence under the "Origins" section. I recommend this at the end of "Origins:"

Homophobia can also be used to describe the fear of monotony or sameness. This definition is not commonly used, and due to misunderstanding chronophobia (fear of boredom) may be used in many cases.

This could all be sourced to the guidewhois link, is short enough not detract from the more common meaning, and links to a subject better equipped to handle this definition. I do feel that detracting from the more common meaning would be a mistake.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My thoughts? (1) What is guidewhois.com, and what makes it a reliable source? (2) I This seems farfetched and trivial, at best. Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm curious: do you object to words like "butterfly" because butter does not fly? Regardless of what the individual components mean, "homophobia" means "bigotry against gay people." On the Wikipedia we are supposed to go with what words mean, not what we want them to mean. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

AP
Please explain to me how stating that one of the biggest news sources in the country is removing the term 'homophobia' from their Style Book, quoting and explaining their stated reason as to why, and noting the alternative term they will is a violation of WP:NPOV.  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned. Additional (not blog) sources Chicago Tribune, La Times. La Times Baltimore Sun NE Ent 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) updated NE Ent 19:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Black Kite's edit summary is false. Politico is not a blog; it's a news organization.  The information about AP is neutral, factual, supported by a reliable source(s), and it's relevant to the section.  Apparently, however, it's inconvenient to those holding a particular POV.   Belch fire - TALK  19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion focused on content, not the perceived motivations of other editors. NE Ent 19:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPADE.  Belch fire - TALK  19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine to mention APs change of heart, but let's stick to the facts, not mention some random AP staffer's POV, and source it to something a little better than politico. There are plenty out there.  And, of course, there are many that suggest APs change is down to political interference.  Balance, always balance.  Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling a deputy editor a "random staffer" is a bit BLPish. NE Ent 19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Belchfire - That's weird, because it says blog at the top of the page and in the url: http://www.politico.com/ blogs /media/2012/11/ap-nixes-homophobia-ethnic-cleansing-150315.html - MrX 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Random staffer"? Per the description AP Deputy Standards Editor, it looks to me like the person quoted was in a position to speak for the organization on its reason for the change, which means it was perfectly appropriate to include and, again, appropriate for the section.   Belch fire - TALK  19:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Politico is a news organization therefore a RS source. Whether it's better or worse than the Baltimore Sun, for example, is an opinion, not a fact. The way to strike balance is to include some comments about the APs action, not edit war over the insertion. NE Ent 19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A blog on an otherwise reliable news organisation's website is not a reliable source, it's an op-ed. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, Black Kite. See WP:NEWSBLOG.  Honestly, I would expect an admin to have a better grasp of policy.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh-uh. You didn't read the whole thing.  You've still got to quote it as "X said, in an opinion piece in Z magazine...".  Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. This was straight news reporting, not an opinion piece.  Didn't they make you take a test or something?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin process is described at WP:RFA. NE Ent 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they made me take that one. Anyway, it's a blog. It says "blog" in the URL and on the page. Hence it is an opinion piece from that staffer, regardless of what it says. How difficult would it have been to find an actual straight news report? It apparently took NE Ent a couple of minutes. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's wrong BK. Just because it says "blog" somewhere doesn't make it an opinion piece. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Slate piece is also labeled "commentary" so it needed a "X said" too, right? And I'm not sure "straight" news is the best term to use in this context. NE Ent 20:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is information about Associated Press decision in "Ad-hominem label" section? I looked the sources, and there is no mention of Ad-hominem.-- В и к и  T  20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this explains it rather well: "[Homophobia is] ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have." The AP decision is discussed because AP realized the ad hominem nature of the term and decided to stop using it for that reason.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur a more neutral section title could be used ... suggestions? Use in political and social contexts? AP Stylebook usage? NE Ent 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the section title. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AP Stylebook usage is more neutral.-- В и к и  T  20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's NOT more neutral. In fact, it's a good example of blurring.  Segregating it into separate section removes relevance to the rest of the article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its' arguable whether connecting to "ascribing mentality disability" to "ad hominem" is synthesis or not -- Would recombining both section header to Perjorative work? Or is their another term that we can agree encompasses both terms? NE Ent 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no synthesis and AP's explanation captures ad hominem thinking in a nutshell. I'm not categorically against changing the section header, but I can't think of a better one and Ad hominem should remain in view.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, okay ... restored for now since there's not a clear consensus and it seems to me to read better as a single section. NE Ent 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted per WP:NPOV because (1) the wording said x is fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than describing it as the stated opinion of an AP editor and (2) the addition made zero mention of the notable reactions to the announcement. The modifications subsequently made by Black Kite and NE Ent have resolved my concerns. Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm mostly on the fence

Restored comments by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality and Christian Concern -- NPOV means we balance comments from the left with comments from that right, not that we don't have any POV statements in articles. NE Ent 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * no, you cannot just take positions from websites and claim they are valid responses to make it balanced. Any comments need to have been given credence as worthy of being mentioned and be covered by in third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so... using that criteria, how do you justify leaving in Slate? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, none of that stuff adds anything of value to the article. It only got inserted because an editor was having a hissy fit about his edits being reverted.  We see a lot of that sort of thing in certain kinds of articles.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My preference would be at least remove the comments from AFTAH, as that organization is quite fringe. That said, I won't loose sleep over it. My preference would be to exclude opinions, and merely state AP's decision and rationale. - MrX
 * Agreed. Just cover AP's decision and supporting rationale, and leave it at that.  Everything else is POV-cruft, as I've already explained.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well; I wrote it that way and that is the best way. Just revert back to my version, which gave the decision, reasons given by the AP for the change, and the alternative phrase to be used. It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention that they did this for all non-clinical phobias as well (ie. Islamophobia).  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Two editors does not a consensus make -- until you get Rivertorch, BK, RedPen et. al. to agree, restoring your version is edit warring, not being bold. NE Ent 17:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, your math is wrong - the total is three, not two. Second, I would strike your edit warring accusation; I made a bold edit because three (3) editors agreed on a point and nobody objected within a 16-hour period of time. That is not edit warring in any sense of the term. Per our article on edit warring:


 * You oppose removing it, fine. So let's discuss it instead of you accusing me of edit warring.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That actually made me laugh - " Just cover AP's decision and supporting rationale, and leave it at that. Everything else is POV-cruft". Translation - "just leave in everything that agrees with my POV, and remove everything else".  Oh, if everything were so simple, eh?  Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not as humorous as your own self-serving misinterpretation of policy and self-serving misrepresentation of facts   Actually, what Toa Nidhiki05 suggests is to simply go with the facts - the ones that are, you know, actually relevant to the subject of the article.  Yes, we already understand that you don't like the facts, which is why you insist on attempting to counter them with editorial bluster from the gay media.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that the reporting of the opposition to APs move (from such paragons of the "gay media" as Slate and the Baltimore Sun) are not actually facts? That's ... interesting. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article as last edited by TRPofD strikes an appropriate balance between the various opinions. NE Ent 18:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited multiple times lately, you may wish to include a link as to which historical version you are talking about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I'd still argue that the reaction of more major anti-gay organisations should be included if they appear. The permalink is . Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there anti-gay groups that have been quoted in third parties? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * here is the atlantic quoting the new republic's position -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The version as of this edit seems reasonable to me. - MrX 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Eeeewww. Hate stupid tags in articles. Hey world, we suck! (Looks fine without the tag). NE Ent 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. Actually, I was thinking the same thing. Boldly removed. - MrX 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The tag is useful because the described change just happened, is currently drawing reaction, and is liable to draw considerably more reaction. Other than that, I can live with this version. (I'm making one minor change in the interest of brevity but am not restoring the tag.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm hitting this party a little late. It looks like the ugly recentism tag is back, and we're back to two paragraphs instead of one. As an alternative to giving this undue weight and then tagging it, why don't we just crop it down to the single 1-3 sentence paragraph it deserves and then lose the tag? I've made an edit that does this, and I've also tried to remove a lot of the quotations, commentary, and opinions that too often clutter our articles. (I moved some of the quotes and opinions into the footnotes.) Anyway, the diff is here. It's a bold edit, so feel free to revert and discuss. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Need for a more global view
There's a very American slant to all that's above. This is a global encyclopaedia. Here in Australia there is simply no question that in our version of English homophobia is NOT about a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It's all about negative attitudes to homosexuals or homosexuality. I ask people to read this article from one of our quality newspapers to see that it has nothing to do with a phobia. Maybe there's a linguistic difference between our countries. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with the need for cross-cultural perspective - by all means, have at it! But, that said... "phobia" comes to us from a Greek root that translates into English as "fear", and I'm pretty sure that Greek translates exactly the same in Australia as it does here in the U.S.  How the word is actually used in common parlance is another matter altogether, but that has no bearing on the actual meaning.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)~


 * No, that's an incorrect view. Words do not mean what their Greek roots once meant. They mean what current usage says they mean. So, you can argue about what current usage is, but you cannot argue that their roots define their current meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a pretty good explanation in the article for Phobia. I've already agreed that we should cover popular usage (and we do), but we aren't going to pretend that the word means something else entirely than what it says in a dictionary.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But just as with the Greek roots, the meanings of components of words don't define the larger word. The article Phobia is irrelevant to the meaning of the word Homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is complete, unambiguous rubbish. How do you explain that nearly every good dictionary provides information on word origins?  As I said... information on popular usage is relevant, but not comprehensive or dispositive.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Calling what I write, in good faith, "complete, unambiguous rubbish", is a personal attack. It's certainly not part of a mature, respectful discussion. Nor does it prove your point. In fact, it probably proves the opposite. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. No, it's not a personal attack; it's a candid observation about what you wrote.  I suggest you learn the criteria (Npa) before you make such an allegation.  Sorry your feelings got hurt.  Cheers.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From that very link: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." To describe my post as "complete, unambiguous rubbish" is pretty insulting. Hence it's a personal attack. Grow up and discuss my words. Point out the failure in my logic, if there is any. When you resort to abuse, rather than facts and logic, I feel even more strongly that I'm right. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did discuss your words: I said they were rubbish. If you want additions to the article, you need to come up with facts and logic.  What you've offered so far is, well... rubbish.   <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The meanings of components of words do not define the larger word. And it's even less common for the roots of parts of a word to provide the modern meaning of a word. For example, starting at the start of the dictionary I use. Aardvark comes from two words meaning earth and pig. It's not a pig. The aardwolf is not a wolf. Abandon comes from the French a bandon, meaning under one's jurisdiction. Not what we mean today. Most Aberdeen Angus are not, these days, from Aberdeen. Abject comes from the same word in Latin which meant thrown away. About comes from the Old English abutan, meaning on the outside. Need I go on?  HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the English language is anything at all, it is rich in exceptions to its own rules. I can easily come up with 100, 500, or 1000 examples of English words with contemporary definitions that are derived precisely from their Latin, Greek, French or German roots. The fact that some words have evolved means absolutely nothing.

Got anything else? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 08:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that you accept that exceptions to the "rules" exist. all I need to do is point out that homophobia is one of those exceptions. It does not mean what the words inside it add up to. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that we already have a 4400 word article explaining that in glorious detail, what, precisely, do you propose to add to it? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the chat. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a linguistic difference as much as a societal one. Here in the UK, unlike the US, we don't have a large amount of very vocal organisations (religious or otherwise) who espouse an anti-gay position.  Thus, there are far fewer people and/or groups to be "offended" at the use of the word.  In fact, "homophobia" is pretty much the standard parlance for a negative view of homosexuality.  It is used by the British Government's legal (here, criminal (here), and sporting (here) departments and even by the Conservative Prime Minister themselves (here).  It is used by major news sources, from those on the left (here) all the way across to those on the right (here).  Interestingly, searching Google News for "Anti-Gay" in UK news sources (thus) either tends to find references to people being "anti-gay marriage" or references to foreign news stories (i.e. Uganda). Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Anti-gay". Who, exactly, is "anti-gay"? Per the left, anyone who espouses any view that does not accept the so-called homosexual political agenda, even including (and I've witnessed this) some homosexuals, such as those who accept that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and thus there is no such thing as the "right" to (or, indeed, any such thing as) "gay marriage". And here we see the problem with people like that defining what homophobia is and just who is homophobic. -- Glynth (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you do yourself any favours by using the rhetoric ("homosexual political agenda", putting gay marriage in scare quotes) of such groups, it merely makes your biases clear. And groups across the spectrum from Westboro Baptist Church to the American Family Association are clearly anti-gay; not only do they admit it themselves, but any fundamentalist or Bible truth organisation tends to be, for obvious reasons.  Claiming it's an invention of "the left" is simply deluded. Black Kite (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can easily justify the language and quotation marks I used, but this isn't a forum. Suffice it to say, I'm not here to kowtow to history revisionists, Orwellian newspeak, or politically correct nonsense. -- Glynth (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Phobia"
From the Hoplophobia page:
 * Hoplophobia is not a true phobia ... For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center?
 * Homophobia is not a true phobia. Phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of homosexuals and homosexuality can exist, but are unusual.

-- Glynth (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The explanation is quite simple: it's the politicization of science. Sociology is one of the most heavily politicized sciences in Western civilization (if you can even call it a science, which is questionable), even more so than "climate science".  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion about Homophobia, homosexuality, climate science or Western civilization. If you want to discuss these issues in friendly environment, you should go to Free Republic.-- В и к и  T  20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll assume good faith and pretend you'd actually care if WP talk went slightly and temporarily (for a single comment) into a larger scope in response to a perfectly valid criticism of the page at hand even if the topic were something more like, say, the problems with sites like the aforementioned Free Republic. Anyway, I'm not using it like a forum. I'm pointing out problems with the article. For instance:


 * I find it quite telling that a few paragraphs are spent explaining what "homophobia" is and how it's a "phobia" - talk about fear of being called homosexual when you're not, or fear of being infected by an STD due to homosexuals, etc. - and yet the entire remainder of the article goes on using "homophobia" in the largely unrelated, more "standard", perhaps more "modern" sense: A slur used to advance a certain agenda. Not in so many words of course - too many Wikipedians are pushing that agenda for spelling this out to be allowed. We're lucky we've even got a "criticism" section, let alone one that devotes an entire paragraph to the fact that this is nothing but ad hominem... but of course, half of said paragraph is a criticism of that cricism. And the entire section uses loaded terms like "____ rights opponents", natch.


 * Although the article never truly explains it to the reader, an intellectually honest reader ought to notice the disparity between the term's supposed meaning and its actual usage. -- Glynth (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This has already been hashed out here ad nauseum. Please review the recent archives for an almost identical discussion. Then if you have specific, sourced edits to make, feel free to make them. - MrX 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Change this page or change hoplophobia. -- Glynth (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is remarkably similar to Talk:Homophobia/Archive_13, isn't it? Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts are stubborn things. They tend to crop up again and again, no matter how many times you brush them away. -- Glynth (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what exactly are you implying? For the record, I came here after seeing the hoplophobia page. Reading the section there naturally made me curious whether this page followed the same standard. I wasn't remotely surprised to see it doesn't, since this is still Wikipedia and its, shall we say, demographics haven't changed since the last time I had to deal with the page protector brigade. Even if you shut me down and I just give up since there's no point fighting against "wikiality" at this moment in time, the double standard remains, it's painfully obvious, and people like me (to various degrees) will keep finding it, so this sad excuse for a discussion is going to happen again, and again, and again - until one page or the other is fixed. -- Glynth (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoring this section to visibility. MrX, you prove my point about Wikipedians and the tyranny of the majority. And don't tell me I have to suggest a specific change or else you're allowed to remove this section. That's never been the case anywhere else - or has it become a new standard I was unaware of when one of us eeeevil "rednecks" start to "abuse our free speech", as you guys put it earlier, per the link Black Kite provided? I've mentioned clear problems with the article. I said what needs to be done. You just refuse to discuss it. You aren't interested in an intellectually honest discussion. You aren't interested in improving the article so that it is intellectually honest. You just want to bury the problem for reasons I need not speculate on but should be obvious to the reader. -- Glynth (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, look; it's another editor come to try to make a difference! I wonder how the page watchmen will execute this one... will it be via AN/I or RFC this time? God forbid you try to take this to arbitration. But that will never happen, because it would backfire, wouldn't it? Getting rid of North probably wasn't the greatest idea, now was it? Regardless, Glynth, your assessment of the page is quite accurate. They've managed to chase or ban away nearly every member who's questioned this article. I suppose I'm probably next on the hit list at this point, as I haven't gone away for six months. This page does not conform to Wikipedia's stadards, and is grossly inconsistent, as you have pointed out. —Maktesh (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a WP:Democracy so you don't get this "Free Speech" you mention. This page is for the improvement of the article, so it does help if you suggest a specific change, rather than use it as a WP:Soapbox. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What gives you the moral authority to tell me to shut up, "NE Ent"? And don't pretend hiding that text and telling everyone not to modify it isn't doing exactly that. Accusing everyone who points out obvious flaws of Wikipedia of just standing on a soapbox is why Wikipedia never gets better. It's a systemic problem, but you're quite content with the problem, aren't you? I've made a change proposal. I've justified that proposal. And in return, I've had people hide the proposal, hide my justifications of the proposal, and point to past supposed "consensus" (contrary to your assertion that this isn't a democracy) to stick with the intellectually dishonest way of things as if to say "when we tell you people to shut up, STAY shut up". (Oh, and Jenova20 -- I'd put this in reply to you directly but I'm "not allowed" to edit the "closed" conversation above, yet I will make this point known regardless as you've wrongly characterized what I've said -- I was quoting someone else when I mentioned "free speech". An editor who attacked people wanting consistent articles with no double standards, intellectually honest people like me, labeling them as "rednecks".)


 * If you "must" hide this comment too, then 1) it should go alongside the other section so people can see it together with what I'm replying to, and 2) most importantly, this article should actually be improved. Of course, I only say this since it's apparently too much to ask that Wikipedians stop pushing well-known double standards, so I can't expect you to comply with requests for these comments to be shown in the hopes that more of you will wake up to the systemic problems and do something about it. (Heck, Jimmy Wales admitted that WP is biased to the left, but he doesn't think that's an issue. Doesn't think that's an issue! Gee, I wonder if he's left-wing, himself..) -- Glynth (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice
 * First, empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a phobia in the clinical sense. Indeed, the limited data available suggest that many heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias (see Shields & Harriman, 1984).


 * Second, using homophobia implies that antigay prejudice is an individual, clinical entity rather than a social phenomenon rooted in cultural ideologies and intergroup relations. Moreover, a phobia is usually experienced as dysfunctional and unpleasant. ...

-- Glynth (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that doesn't take into account the fact that even if some new term was invented that didn't call it a "phobia" or some other label that doesn't fit simple prejudice against homosexuals, the label is still used as a slur against people who are not actually prejudiced against homosexuals. Being against so-called "gay marriage", for instance, automatically gets you the homophobe label, even though there are homosexual people who are against it for various reasons, e.g. intellectual honesty about what "marriage" is. -- Glynth (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see etymological fallacy. Words acquire meanings beyond the simple agglomeration of their parts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, a word doesn't necessarily shed it's former meaning simply because popular usage has given it a new one. For example, the word "gay" comes to mind.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  14:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Often, though, it does shed its former meaning. Then dictionaries mark that usage as dated. Of course, in the case of "homophobia", there's more than just popular usage at issue, since the word is used in a variety of formal contexts. In any event, I've pretty much lost track of what these threads are all about. Does anyone have a specific, policy-based proposal for improving the article? Rivertorch (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Shields & Harriman ref looks interesting, describing the origin of the term as to the current definition of the word.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relevance? The fact that "hoplophobia" has "phobia" at the end was all that was deemed necessary to put a prominent notice in the article warning that it's not a "real phobia". How is this any different other than the fact that more agenda-pushers abuse the "homophobia"/"homophobic"/"homophobe" label on a day-to-day basis than there are people talking about hoplophobia? -- Glynth (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Homophobia isn't an actual phobia in the first place. Homophobia is purely about prejudice and discrimination. Fear may be a part of those and may even be the cause of it but that is not what makes homophobia homophobia. Almost non of the discriminatory phobias are actually phobias. However on the hoplophobia connection there is one important thing that is being forgotten. Guns are objects they don't have feelings they don't have souls or lives or family etc. Homosexuals are people. Homophobia IS NOT similar to hoplophobia. On the same topic you say homophobia is a slur, of course it is. So is every other discrimination word. Would they prefer to be called a sexualist, heterosexist or maybe just a bigot. The point is if you discriminate against gay and lesbian people I (and others) have the right to call you a homophobe. After all many homophobic people use slurs for homosexuals as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ramen sister ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guns aren't people, people have feelings, therefore... therefore what, exactly? Sounds like an appeal to emotion to me. Forget "sounds like": It is. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not there are any hurt feelings when determining whether any discrimination (in the (unfortunately) typical sense of the term, with its negative connotations) has occurred. So no, you don't have more of a right to call someone a homophobe than I do to call someone a hoplophobe just because one involves guns and the other involves a sexual orientation. Not to mention the fact that you certainly have no right to call someone a homophobe who isn't a homophobe just because you don't like their views on, say, "gay marriage". (Plenty of intellectually honest homosexuals are against "gay marriage", FYI.) Nor is any of this even remotely relevant to any point I've been making. It's nothing but a logical fallacy that distracts from the facts I've brought up, which you don't even address except to admit that homophobia is not an actual phobia (but of course this somehow doesn't push you into accepting that we state as much prominently in the article so the double standard is ended). -- Glynth (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all I don't like your insinuating tone. I would not call someone who is against what you call gay marriage to be homophobic. If it was up to me marriage itself wouldn't exist since it was FOUNDED as a racist, sexist and homophobic institution used to make two (or more people) of opposite sexes bonded for life that originally had to be of the same race and in which the women were basically signing into a slavery contract. So no I wouldn't call someone against gay marriage homophobic because I believe the institution of marriage was created as homophobic. However my political views are irrelevent. But let me just say this right now. We are talking in the discrimination portal and category about sociological privilege and disadvantages. Homophobia is a form of that directed towards homosexuals. Hoplophobia however is a one hundred percent political ideology which has to do with what someone does and not who they are inheritantly. Guns are not people and have not always existed. Another great thing to bring up is that homosexuals have been persecuted their entire existence for nothing other than who they love meanwhile gun owners have been persecuted for half a century because that a minority of them have killed people. Now I really don't care to share with you my opinion on gun control because it is not a subject I particularly care about one way or another. However guns are not human, they do not have human rights. If you believe in guns fine but do not compare it to a civil rights violation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also what I said above does not mean that I believe in the discrimination that gays and lesbians face because their relationships are not recognized the same as heterosexual marriage. I do believe that everyone should be able to see their loved one if they are sick and in the hospital and die and it is clearly discrimination to give financial benifits to one form of relationship (heterosexual marriage recieves many federal tax cuts) and not another form of relationship that is equally valid (Homosexual couples that have been together sometimes even decades).-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As some elitist punks keep deleting, I will keep editing. If you don't like it, deal with it. Ban me if you must, which will prove how imperialistic you really are. Also, do not worry, I am screening this and posting it on the web once you ban me for incompetence to figure out reality.

Now, let us try again. People with Panic Disorder will find a great offense to this term considering it leans in the direction of changing the definition of phobias in which in turn change the definitions of panic attacks and disorders. This isn't an opinion. It is a fact, and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure that out. Agoraphobia isn't fear of someone being a bridge, which is what this whole article seems to indirectly suggest. This is obviously leaning against any scientific facts that would disprove this whole article in an instant. I do not make the facts, I just repeat them. If you do not like it, contact your local government officials and change the word of phobia, which you will be hated even more than you are now. Thanks.

Source: Agoraphobia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001921/ Secondary sources: Phobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

I do not see the word 'discrimination' in any other words. This point still stands. Delete it again if you wish imperialists. My point still stands and will always stand when I enter sociology to attack this pitiful excuse for a term.


 * Since you (almost) managed to write that without being incivil, here are a couple of points.
 * Read the FAQ at the top of the page.
 * Wikipedia does not define what words mean; it merely reflects common usage. To use your analogy, if "Agoraphobia" were used by the majority of reliable sources to describe a fear of someone being a bridge, then that is what the Wikipedia article on Agoraphobia would reflect. You are tilting at the wrong target here; you would be better off taking the issue up with the news and other sources that routinely use "Homophobia" to mean what this article explains. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That FAQ should be the entrance to a controversial section on this page. Please do understand. Also, the word is 'Uncivilized'. To add to this, wikipedia is supposed to be 'unbiased' and resort to facts and information. Not having a controversial section to the word homophobia that is still part of the word homophobia is 'not' displaying unbiased facts and information. What is the difference between this and news sources? Sounds like this is also reporting 'news' as well in my book. The problem doesn't stem from the news. It stems from people. Last time I checked, people made this article. The news is an entity that cannot survive without people. (And yes, my previous posts were supposed to be provocative, because that is how change comes with people who refuse to listen to reason.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * People made this page based on Wikipedia policies - you might want to read WP:V, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS as a starting point.  To answer your main point, there is already a large section in the article on that subject, look -> Homophobia.  And seriously, being provocative is not the best way to promote your changes - very much the opposite. By the way, "incivil" is merely an alternative spelling of "uncivil". Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that is 'unbiased'? That leans directly with the LGBT community only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you actually disagree with? The dictionary definition or the meaning in common use? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the rant, except to ツ Jenova20, considering he called me a troll and was the one who decided to first be provocative. (Although you deleted the evidence Black Kite) I didn't notice the Ad-Hoc and the Severe Mental Disorder parts of the Criticized section. Please feel free to delete all conversations. I reside in Massachusetts and many were surprised on how the word was defined. I was surprised there wasn't a 'In reality, the word would actually translate to' section, which would be separate from The Criticism and Definition section. This would be different in the sense that it would go into great detail of the suffixes and prefixes (Assuming) of the word.

I disagree with both, and I have the right to not forgive you ツ Jenova20 considering I have PDD-NOS with Panic Disorder. Also, considering I dated a sexist 'lesbian' and agoraphobia exists, it is hard NOT to believe that homophobia as a Psychological disorder does NOT exist. The only way I got her to date me is complicated, but she was in fact a lesbian. I mean, by God, I fear her because she was the most uptight, sexist, hypocritical cheating woman I have ever dated and hit the worst list. I shouldn't have answered you ツ Jenova20 since you do not deserve an answer, but whatever. Also note that I do not have homophobia, I just don't stand with their morals, even when I was rebelling against Christianity. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever your personal experiences have been, this is not a chat forum and the discussions on this page need to be "here are the reliable sources that say "X" and so we should add/include/modify the content from "Y". Personal discussions between editors of a more personal nature can take place on your user talk pages. But THIS page discussions MUST be limited to sources and article content. Extraneous conversations can and will be removed and or closed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom


 * I didn't call you a troll, i believe i said you were trolling. That's besides the point though. The thing is that you found what you wanted. Now please Act in good faith towards others. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you would say that AFTER the evidence of the contrary was deleted. Either way, no I have not found what I wanted. I wanted the etymology of the word without media, news, and appeal to population fallacy bias as a section in this. However, someone with your caliber will never understand Psychology nor the true definition of "Phobia". "an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation—" "Extreme and irrational fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder (a neurosis), since anxiety is its chief symptom. Phobias are generally believed to result when fear produced by an original threatening situation (such as a near-drowning in childhood) is transferred to other similar situations (such as encounters with bodies of water), the original fear often being repressed or forgotten. Behaviour therapy can be helpful in overcoming phobias, the phobic person being gradually exposed to the anxiety-provoking object or situation in a way that demonstrates that no threat really exists." - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

I will bring up also what a previous person said. "From the Hoplophobia page:

Hoplophobia is not a true phobia ... For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center? " No beating around the bush kids, whether it is the burning bush, George Bush, Bush Jr, or just a regular bush. Yes, that includes homosexuals and Liberals. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What would you like us to call people who don't like gay people? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * fag haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.181.144 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think that kinda proves my point. Homophobic is much nicer, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that wasn't me who responded, you proved nothing but your bigotry. We call them people who hate homosexuals, people who had bad experiences with homosexuals, and etc. How do you like it if someone called you heterophobic? Or yet, let us assume you have an actual phobia. Can I say that you are afraid that you may actually be a bridge considering you are afraid of them? Or better yet, say you hate bridges just because you fear them? How about them apples? Just because your bigoted closed-minded insolence decides to apply a term and expects it without backlash does not mean that there will not be backlash against you recruitment and indictment people as to go far as such labeling them as criminals to the extent of punishing those who may actually have a fear of homosexuals. When you mess around with words in the Science department, or better yet, Psychology, we all know Christians are not the only problem; that is assuming they were one in the first place. So let's try this again, shall we? Instead of voicing your worthless opinions and attacking a straw man, how about answering the two questions I have asked? What will it hurt, besides your pitiful agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's sad that we have to rehash the same material so often. There is absolutely no question that where I come from homophobia means a dislike of gay people, and maybe doing and saying mean things to them for no other reason than they are gay. An example. Another. One from politics and one from sport. It's common usage. All the bleating in the world about what you think it should mean is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So, when did the word "Phobia" mean hate? And do not source google. Their definitions have been screwed up since day one. Even Wikipedia disagrees with their definitions and you obviously didn't read a word I said. If this is about you, then change it to "HiLo48 definition of Homophobia". If this is about different countries, states, and etc, then add different sections. However, no one gave you the authority to decide what is and isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the meaning of phobia. It's about the meaning of homophobia. I gave the meaning where I come from, with evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The origins of the term are described in the article -- Homophobia. English Wikipedia is a private website owned by the Wikimedia Foundation which has delegated most decision making capability to the volunteers who run it, so collectively we do have authority to say what is and isn't written here. Whether individual readers choose to accept the correctness of Wikipedia says is up to them. Note also that what homophobia means where HiLo comes from, or where I come from, or where DarkGuardian comes from, is irrelevant. What's revelant is what what Wikipedia considers reliable sources have to say. NE Ent 03:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. You are entitled to your facts, but not your opinions. When facts and opinions clash, you have to go the Etymology root in this case, in which is definitely not on his side. As I said previously, if you have a problem with the definition "Phobia", take it up with the Wikipedia "Phobia" page or better yet, Psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly suggests that phobia means fear and/or Morbid Fear. I do not see hate in any part of the article that Phobia actually and accurately encompass. If one was to define the word properly, they wouldn't be mindless sheeple following the news media. They would add a media section and a definition section. Unless, of course, you know the real meaning of phobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The meaning of phobia is irrelevant to this article. It's about homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then take out the word phobia and then you will see where this article lands. If you wish to be imperialistic, start here:

"(2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". [9]"

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The meaning of phobia is irrelevant to this article. It's about homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then as I said, take it out if it is 'irrelevant'. That includes from homo"phobia" as well. You will see where this lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the six letters p-h-o-b-i-a are irrelevant. They can't be. They're part of the word homophobia. I just said that the meaning of the word phobia is irrelevant. But you knew that. Dunno why you responded the way you did. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am arguing for the Etymology of the word on this page, not to change the definition of so called 'reliable' sources. However, you are clearly against it considering it dramatically changes the definition ten-fold. The Etymology is poorly written and rushed. Also, you said "Phobia" is irrelevant when the Etymology clearly states "Morbid Fear" on this page. So, are you going to delete it or admit you are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Current common usage is what defines a word, not its etymology. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what is preventing you from deleting the suffix? Affix? Or (Technically) an Interfix? This talk section is also about "Phobia", so stop pulling that fail card. In the case of "Common usage", we have things defined as possibly "informal", slang, pejorative, and other things because the definition is off. Just like the word bitch and fag. Fag is a cig butt and bitch is a female dog. Bastard is also considered a person born out of wedlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First things first: please sign your posts. (Just type four consecutive tildes—it's easy: ~ .) Secondly, before you go any further with this, please make sure you have read the archives and the FAQ, both linked at the top of this page. All the points you're making have been made before, and everyone here is aware of the etymology of the word. HiLo48 is correct that the definition of the word "phobia" is irrelevant. No one here coined the word, and Wikipedia is not responsible for the way the word is actually used in the real world. It is definitely neither informal nor slang; whether it is pejorative is a little more subjective and probably depends on the context. At this point, if you want to pursue this (and you've read archives and FAQ), it would be helpful if you would make a very specific proposal for exactly what you want changed. That way, other editors can comment on the merits of the proposal and consensus can be determined without the current wall of text growing too overwhelming. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DarkGuardianVII has "been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE". I suspect this thread will die now. How long before someone else wants to fight this fight? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a place to discuss article content, not a battleground. Given the number of available usernames is effectively infinite, "fighting" the fight isn't going to accomplish very much. NE Ent 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There will always be those who try to push an agenda on Wikipedia. Letting them is neither appropriate or allowed by policy or neutrality. Likewise allowing anonymous editors to redefine common use words to suit their own opinions is not allowed. I'd suggest the best way to end it is by enforcing policy effectively in these situations so that it doesn't waste the time of others arguing over the same thing endlessly. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)